Everything MLRC has published, in any publication, since 2017.
Florida's distorted First Amendment reality stems from a “war on woke” that attempts to eliminate certain viewpoints and has infected Florida’s legislative and executive decisions. Fortunately, federal courts have pulled Florida back from the First Amendment "upside down." However, there still is a long way to go.
The decision has been controversial and has received mixed reviews within the copyright bar, so MLRC convened an expert roundtable to weigh-in.
MLRC deputy director on what was interesting, troubling, and/or puzzling about ten of the Court’s decisions this term.
In filing a complaint many have dubbed “the first of its kind,” a radio host in Georgia recently sued for defamation the company behind the much-buzzed-about artificial intelligence chat platform ChatGPT. And while the concept of suing an AI developer for an intent-based tort may be quite novel, the facts at issue highlight some familiar…
A Florida trial judge dismissed a Tampa disc-jockey’s SLAPP suit against a local radio station and rival DJ because the defamation count was based on nonactionable statements, and the additional claims were barred by Florida’s single-action rule.
The Court dismissed the Complaint on actual malice pleading grounds, finding that Judge Patrick had failed to allege facts that, if proven, would constitute clear and convincing evidence “that Defendants acted with actual malice when they described her as a QAnon-linked judge.”
The Court held that Gottwald is a limited-purpose public figure and must show by clear and convincing evidence that Sebert acted with actual malice when she accused him of sexual assault. It also granted summary judgment to Sebert with respect to five of the allegedly defamatory statements on the ground that they fell squarely within…
St. Louis Post-Dispatch Fights Prior Restraint on Publication of Murder Defendant’s Mental Health ReportJean Maneke
Joseph E. Martineau, attorney with Lewis Rice LLC who is defending the Post-Dispatch, argued that there is a long history of courts rejecting any effort to restrain publication under such circumstances, given that the pleading was lawfully obtained by the reporter in its quick response to the Court.
Though in our volatile and combative times, many journalists – and their sources – are exceptionally courageous, and often sacrifice their well-being for their profession and causes, Ellsberg was the unequaled model for such behavior.
The Court says explicitly that whether a statement is a threat does not depend on the intent of the speaker but upon the message received by the listener. However, scienter amounting to subjective recklessness is required in order to avoid chilling effects on other speech.
Connecticut joins 16 states in holding that anti-SLAPP motions to dismiss may be immediately appealed rather than waiting for the conclusion of the case.
The quiet end for SB 896 came after a noisy lobbying effort by media, advocacy, consumer, and business groups to kill the bill.
Though courts rarely find that a party has been fraudulently joined, the court did so in this instance.
Virginia Federal Court Grants Gannett’s Motion to Dismiss Defamation Lawsuit Brought by Prominent Anti-Vaxxer and Covid CriticMichael J. Grygiel
The threshold dismissal was particularly welcome — and appropriate — because the Complaint targeted the newspaper’s reporting on a newsworthy community event implicating vitally important public health issues.
An attorney’s recent debacle with AI was based on a basic and very common misunderstanding of what a tool like ChatGPT, powered by a large language model, is and does. This article attempts to clear things up.
Although Sen. Warren used “strong words,” her word choice and tone were a persuasive “call to action” consistent with elected officials’ right to “forcefully criticize” other speakers.